Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ
Posted by Deborah on 9/21/10
I agree. You are assuming that the courts are unbiased and
non-conflicted, not to mention competent. There are many instances of
this not being the case throughout the country.
I always believe that the truth is an adequate defense against a charge
of defamation, written or spoken. Apparently I was wrong.
Divining Mrs. Kramer's motive for telling the truth, when weighed
against the original papers' veracity produced by her adversary,
requires little flexibility. The fact that the papers are still being
used is merely proof of ongoing harm and damage; enough credible
scientists and medical professionals have weighed in on the issue and
"alterations" of various medical and quasi-medical institutions'
"position" statements indicate that there were some oversights or
omissions in the original papers.
Superior financial interests and power-wielding or manipulation does not
equate to justice or hard science, or the truth for that matter.
You have a lovely day, too. As I've said before, thanks to Mrs.
Kramer's efforts, as well as many of us impacted by the issue, people
like you experienced an unprecedented boom time. You are very welcome.
On 9/21/10, Rem Dude wrote:
> If you believe that crimes were committed, then why are these
> documents still widely accepted, circulated and used?
> Apparently the only crime committed was by Ms Kramer. There is no
> ambiguity there, at least not in the eyes of the court. She lost
> twice; any rational person can understand that.
> Seems you want to flexibly apply the law so I do not believe any
> further discussion is necessary. Emotional, baseless arguments are
> best left to the uninformed.
> Have a nice day.
> On 9/21/10, Deborah wrote:
>> You failed to address the two papers, the circumstances under which
>> they were written, authorship, how these papers were used, by whom
>> and for what. I do believe crimes were committed, just not by Mrs.
>> I do believe, based on the transcripts I read, that the plaintiff
>> changed his statements under direct questioning about specifics of
>> the papers in question. I do believe Mrs. Kramer showed, beyond
>> doubt, that marketing had been used to spin a paper into a having
>> near absolute scientific authority when, in fact, it did not.
>> Furthermore, the impact the papers had on the legal and medical
>> professions as well as the general public at large has been
>> The only ones that benefited from it, besides those hired to
>> produce them, are those with vested interests and potential
>> liabilities in mold exposure toxic torts; that list could include
>> lawyers, realtors, contractors, builders, real estate investors (
>> breaking that into component parts might be time-consuming ) and
>> others I've accidentally left out.
>> Mrs. Kramer's work in exposing the above matters was conducted in
>> the interest of the public good and for informative purposes, not
>> for "revenge" or desire to cause harm to Mr. Kelman's "reputation";
>> any harm done to his reputation or "good" name were as a result of
>> his own actions and inactions. The courts seem to forget that they
>> are bound by their oaths of office and that misprision of felonies
>> is a crime.
>> As hard as it has been to see justice done, the time will come when
>> falsifying and/or manipulating scientific data and info that
>> in the direct harm, personal, medical and/or financial, to others
>> and the general public will be considered a criminal act much as
>> loading a gun, aiming at someone and shooting them unjustifiably
>> On 9/20/10, Rem Dude wrote:
>>> When you attack someone's character in an effort to intimidate
>>> and/or victimize, you can be charged with a crime. In this case,
>>> justice has been served - twice in fact. No matter how noble the
>>> cause, you don�t break the law in the process without
>>> repercussions. Now, you can attempt to blur the issues and
>>> obfuscate the facts, however, libel on this scale is an
>>> actionable offense.
>>> The moral of the story is - If you don�t agree with researchers
>>> and scientific evidence, simply produce your own irrefutable
>>> facts. However, resorting to childish antics and defamation in
>>> an effort to intimidate can cross the line.
>>> If you want to challenge the facts, don�t lie, don�t
>>> don�t malign, don�t throw childish rants, just provide
>>> scientific proof. And if you can�t provide scientific proof,
>>> may want to reconsider your position on the matter.
>>> Hopefully, this case will remove the childish antics used
>>> by �activists� who are systematically intimidating
>>> and peer reviewed data. Personally, I have my doubts, however,
>>> this case will become an important defense for those who find
>>> themselves the target of defamation.
>>> So at the end of the day and unintentional as it may be, Ms.
>>> Kramer has been of some benefit to the industry; she has
>>> provided a useful tool to prevent intimidation.
Posts on this thread, including this one